Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Epic Games and Google propose ‘comprehensive settlement’ calling for modified permanent injunction, (Nov 6, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

After five years of litigation, the proposed settlement features a global breakthrough on third party app accessibility.

Epic Games, Inc. and Google LLC have proposed a settlement of their long-running Google Play Store suit. They contend the settlement will provide significant benefits to Android users and developers; promote competition on the Android platform; and retain many of the core provisions of the permanent injunction entered last year. The parties urged the court to consider that their settlement and proposed modified injunction (PMI) will: (1) provide a longer remedies period; (2) promote Android app store competition globally and across Android by greatly simplifying user installation of Registered App Stores and apps from those stores; (3) allow developers to offer alternative payment options, including through links to payment websites; and (4) provide developers with immediate Google service fee reductions. The parties respectfully submitted that these settlement benefits qualify as changed circumstances warranting court entry of the PMI. The parties cited some give-and-take in arriving at their settlement. Accordingly, they asked the court to accept their settlement contingent on the court’s acceptance of the PMI and that the court not require the remedies Epic elected to forego here to be conditions of preliminary approval of the proposed state settlement in Utah v. Google LLC, No. 3:21-cv-05227-JD (In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025)).

Background. In October 2024, a jury found Epic proved Sherman Act Section 2 monopolization claims against Google. This led to entry of a three-year permanent injunction against Google. The court enjoined Google from engaging in various revenue sharing, payment conditioning, and Google Play Billing tying conduct for a period of three years, in the United States. The court explained the injunction had to undo the network effect consequences of Google’s “ill-gotten gains” by including a “narrowly tailored” third-party Google Play Store app catalog access provision.

In August 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict. The Ninth Circuit also held that the permanent injunction was valid, and it rejected the Google challenge to Epic’s Article III standing to seek a nationwide injunction. The Ninth Circuit concluded the jury verdict and the district court findings supported the injunctive relief imposed on Google.

In September 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied Google’s motion for a stay of the permanent injunction pending forthcoming Google petitions for a rehearing. The request for a stay was moot because the court had issued an administrative stay pending decision on the petition for rehearing and the court ultimately denied that petition.

Comprehensive settlement. The parties, having reached a “comprehensive settlement” filed under seal, recently filed a joint motion to modify the injunction. The parties said the settlement will, among other things, resolve the instant matter (Epic I) and the separate action, also in the instant court, Epic Games, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Epic II). Epic II began as a seven-count antitrust complaint against Android device manufacturer entities Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung) focusing on the “Auto-Blocker” feature Samsung introduced on its Android mobile devices in or about 2023. Epic questioned the timing of Samsung’s decision to set the Auto Blocker to on by default and whether discouragement of sideloading was really about mobile device security.

PMI contingency. The parties said the settlement in the instant matter is contingent on the court entering the PMI covering Google conduct in the United States. The existing injunction prohibited certain conduct by Google pertinent to revenue sharing; payment conditioning; Google Play billing; and app marketing. It also contained other provisions about catalog access and security precautions. The parties said the proposed modified injunction (PMI) is intended to achieve the same goals in the same markets.

More specifically, the PMI would:

1. Track the existing injunction almost verbatim prohibiting Google from sharing Google Play store revenue with would-be competitors, entering into certain kinds of most-favored exclusivity agreements with developers, or entering into certain agreements with OEMs and carriers about preinstallation or placement of third-party stores.

2. Require Google to fundamentally change Android to enable seamless user download and installation of certain third-party “Registered App Stores” as well as the apps downloadable from such stores. This is meant to address the install friction Epic contended at trial to be a major competitive barrier to rival app stores. The parties acknowledged this would differ from the existing catalog access and third-party store distribution remedies. However, they said it would be an “appropriate alternative with meaningful benefits” changing the Android operating system in ways that will happen globally and “promote competition across Android.” The parties said this modification would provide more certainty to developers and lead to fewer future court disputes about the injunction itself. The parties also touted this remedy would last until 2032.

3. Maintain the existing injunction requirement that Google allow developers to steer users to payment systems other than Google Play Billing, while specifying certain maximum Google charges for Google Play store services.

4. Include in full the three-member Technical Committee of the existing injunction to review disputes or issues related to required technology and processes.

The parties said they appreciated the time and effort the Court put into creating the existing injunction; however, their more recent convergence on a comprehensive settlement to end five years of litigation changed the circumstances. They noted they made their settlement contingent on (1) the court entering the PMI; and (2) the court not conditioning preliminary approval of the proposed state settlement in Utah v. Google LLC, No. 3:21-cv-05227-JD, on Google and the States agreeing to adopt certain remedies from the existing injunction that Epic is choosing to forego. The balance of Epic foregoing certain things and Google undertaking new commitments, vis-a-vis the existing injunction, would benefit developers and consumers. However, it could not be achieved if Google only had new obligations.

The Case is No. 3:21-md-02981-JD.

Judge: Donato, J.

Attorneys: Christine A. Varney (Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP) for Epic Games, Inc. Brian C. Rocca (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) for Google LLC.

Companies: Epic Games, Inc.; Google LLC

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust GCNNews